Cases 11 - 20 of 38
Lonkey v. Blades
as 1:2017cv00379
Petitioner:
John Mathew Lonkey
Respondent:
Randy Blades
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Rauch v. Denney et al
as 5:2017cv06053
Plaintiff:
Michael Eugene Rauch
Defendant:
Larry Denney, Dorsch, Corizon Medical Services and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Scott v. Saw Creek Estate Community Association, Inc. et al
as 3:2017cv00472
Defendant:
Saw Creek Estate Community Association, Inc., Peter Derrenbacher, Eugene Farrell and others
Plaintiff:
Tonia Scott
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331
Scott v. Saw Creek Estate Community Association, Inc. et al
as 1:2017cv01685
Plaintiff:
Tonia Scott
Defendant:
Saw Creek Estate Community Association, Inc., Peter Derrenbacher, Eugene Farrell and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2017cv00033
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
James Smith v. Ahsan Mahmood, et al
as 16-3604
Plaintiff - Appellant:
JAMES L. SMITH
Defendant - Appellee:
AHSAN MAHMOOD, Doctor, JOHN MATHEWS, Doctor, THOMAS ORMAN, Doctor and others
Consumer Opinion LLC v. Frankfort News Corp et al
as 3:2016cv05100
Plaintiff:
Consumer Opinion LLC
Defendant:
Frankfort News Corp, Frankfort Herald News Corp, Hearst Media LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 17 U.S.C. § 101
SMITH v. MAHMOOD et al
as 2:2016cv00326
Defendant:
AHSAN MAHMOOD, JOHN MATHEWS, STEVEN D. MAYNARD and others
Plaintiff:
JAMES L. SMITH
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Ramos v. Carrollton Farmers Branch Independent School District et al
as 3:2015cv01239
Plaintiff:
Guillermo Ramos
Defendant:
Carrollton Farmers Branch Independent School District , James Goode , Nancy Cline and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1343
Hollis v. O'Driscoll
as 13-3688
Petitioner - Appellee:
John Mathew Hollis
Respondent - Appellant:
Olivia Skye O'Driscoll
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
